The riddle of how the White House discovered the telephone call and subsequent content between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak appears to have been solved. The FBI used a “Pen Register.” There was no unmasking, and no warrant.

A pen register is a device/process which records the telephone numbers of outgoing calls. Monitoring outgoing call numbers does not require a search warrant or FISA.

After the 2016 election Lt. Gen Flynn was given a government issued secure cell phone; a blackberry device for use. However, with Flynn under a preexisting FBI investigation the phone numbers Flynn was calling in December ’16 and January ’17 were being monitored.

A review of prior testimony by former FBI Director James Comey [HERE]; prior testimony by former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe [Here]; and a cross-reference of recent releases of Flynn unmasking documents [Here] tells the full story.

In December of 2016 incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was under a sketchy FBI Counterintelligence investigation for possible coordination with Russia. According to recent documents and the Comey transcript, the Flynn investigation began in the summer of 2016; that investigation was ongoing in late December.

After President Obama initiated sanctions against Russia on December 29, 2016. The Obama administration was trying to figure out why Russia was not reacting. According to James Comey testimony the intelligence community, writ large, was tasked to find out why Russia was not reacting more severely. See Transcript:

Note:

…”And so we were all tasked to find out, do you have anything [redacted] that might reflect on this? That turned up these calls at the end of December, beginning of January.”

“do you have anything [redacted] that might reflect on this?” Could pertain to the incoming administration, a person, or an intelligence capability.

However, to identify the “that“, we turn to the McCabe testimony (page 212):

…”in an effort to respond to the tasking from [REDACTED], and so the results of what we found were communicated to the Agency, who I think had the pen on that response.”

The individual or group initiating the task is redacted; however the redaction ends with the letter “f”, so it is most likely “redacted staff.”

Tasking from: NSC staff? NCTC staff? White House staff?

However, the other important facet is the “had the pen on that response.” Meaning had the pen register responsibility on that response.

Pen Registers only monitor ‘outgoing‘ numbers.

It takes ‘trap and tracer’ authority to monitor the ‘incoming.’ Ambassador Kislyak was a foreign official whose surveillance would not require a pen register; however, a warrantless pen register would apply to Michael Flynn. So the discovery of the contact reflects a review of Flynn’s calls; not just Kislyak (who can be monitored for any purpose).

The FBI discovers the contact via a pen register that was monitoring Flynn’s phone. Then James Comey takes the information to DNI James Clapper. Back to Comey transcript:

“And then I briefed it to the Director of National Intelligence, and Director Clapper asked me for copies [REDACTED] which I shared with him.”…

At this point it looks like James Comey uses the pen register to generate a non traditional intelligence product; perhaps a memo or rough draft of the transcript, or the pen register result itself; which, because of the content, contains Michael Flynn’s name.

Director Comey then shares with DNI Clapper.

Clapper then takes the document and uses it to brief President Obama. This is how President Obama discovers the content of the call between Kislyak and Flynn:

The Clapper briefing of President Obama… likely happening prior to January 5th… using some non regular intelligence documentation… is almost certainly the impetus for the unmasking request from President Obama’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough which happened on January 5, 2017:

The January 5th unmasking request applies to a document about Flynn where Flynn’s name is unmasked. That request is almost certainly the result of the White House receiving the official intelligence transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak call. We know this because the non-traditional document that Comey gave to Clapper was not masked.

So the question becomes, what exactly was that ‘non-traditional’ intelligence document that Comey gave to Clapper to brief President Obama?

For that answer we go back to Andrew McCabe’s transcript as he described it (pg 213):

As you can see above McCabe describes the document as a “summary” of the call that “wasn’t an intelligence product”, and any unmasking would be unnecessary because Michael Flynn’s name within it was not masked.

That information flow is also why Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were saying “incidental collection” is the “incorrect narrative” in their text messages. There was no unmasking because Flynn’s contact with Kislyak was not picked up as part of incidental collection, it was picked up because the FBI was using a pen registry to monitor all of Flynn’s contacts:

SUMMARY: Flynn was under FBI investigation. Per the IG report there was no FISA on Michael Flynn. In the document generated by James Comey to share with DNI James Clapper,… to brief President Obama… Michael Flynn’s name was not masked. The document was generated as a result of a pen register monitoring the outgoing contacts and phone numbers of Michael Flynn’s phone.

436 Responses to Comey Briefed Clapper on Flynn-Kislyak Call as a Result of Pen Register on Flynn Phone…

Everyone is confusing “sanctions” talk with “expulsion”…the charge was sanctions but the call was about expulsions. mueller changed it to sanction/Logan b.s. but transcripts would show Russian expulsions.

Mission accomplished. CNN exposed the result of the whole scheme when Flynn resigned in Feb., 2017:

Flynn was not able to definitively refute a Washington Post story late last week that his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak included communication about the sanctions. It is illegal for unauthorized private citizens to negotiate with foreign governments on behalf of the US.
The controversy intensified after the report put Vice President Mike Pence and several senior White House advisers in an uncomfortable position, as they had denied in TV interviews weeks earlier that Flynn discussed sanctions with the ambassador. Some administration officials said Flynn must have misled Pence and others.

Following Mueller’s appointment later that year, Flynn was re-targeted, to squeeze for Russian collusion dirt and failing that, lend substance to the hoax investigation.

Van Grack never produced the Flynn-Kislyak call transcript because it would show clearly that they were discussing expulsion, not sanctions. Indeed, when Sidney Powell pointed out the absence of the transcript, insisting that it was Brady material, Van Grack gave the game away by saying it was not used in connection with the charge.

So, a 2001 misstatement charge with no actual record of the foundational evidence: no transcript, no original 302, both of which were exculpatory. Instead, Van Grack browbeat a plea out of Flynn based on the prior published accounts and threats of a Flynn Jr. prosecution.

Pen Register is NOT Legal in CI investigations, Only CRIMINAL… And DOJ must get it Approved by a Court …. Wasn’t Crossfire Hurricane a Counter Intelligence Operation.???Which Court did they Go To.???
Who was the Lawyer for the Govt.????
“18 U.S.C.A. § 3123 now requires a court order, based on a law enforcement officer’s declaration that the information is relevant to an ongoing investigation, before a pen register may be installed.
(1) Attorney for the government.—
Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

@Sundance
Does it matter that General Flynn & John Eisenberg, both had the same passwords on their phones?

I found it strange, that Flynn’s court document, within the McCord FBI 302, EXHIBIT 3 portion (starting bottom of page 38 to 39), under the heading: Notification Follow-Up, she says this:

“…McCord received an email from Flynn’s email account, but signed by John Eisenberg, Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs … Eisenberg told McCord he was in Flynn’s office … and an assistant had switched his and Flynn’s phones when giving them back. He explained they HAD THE SAME PASSWORD, so Eisenberg accidentally sent the email from Flynn’s phone…”

…was this something already addressed, and I missed it?
Is it normal for two members of National Security, to have the same passwords?
I don’t know, but it sure sounds problematic to me.

OK, now I’m confused (which is not hard for this retired motor-mechanic from Oz)

In your opening statement, you state; “Monitoring outgoing call numbers does not require a search warrant or FISA.

However, in reading your Pen Register link, it states about half way down;

Although Smith upheld the constitutionality of the installation of a pen register without a warrant, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3123 now requires a court order, based on a law enforcement officer’s declaration that the information is relevant to an ongoing investigation, before a pen register may be installed.

In the latest episode of his show (1251, 15 May) Dan Bongino notes the following:

Exception to Court Order Requirement: The President may authorize electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year without a FISC court order where the Attorney General certifies that there is “no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a U.S. person is a party,” provided the surveillance is directed solely at communications among or between foreign powers, or “the ‘acquisition of technical intelligence from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power.” 50 U.S.C. § 1802.

In Dan’s view this raises the possibility that the order to monitor Lt Gen Flynn’s phone calls came directly from the President, via his AG. In that case the proviso concerning communications of US citizens would have been ignored. He further suggests that the expulsion of Russian officials was deliberately timed to trigger contact between Kislyak and Flynn, ensuring that an exchange would take place that could be recorded. In support of his proposition he notes that Andrew McCabe stated that the transcripts came up “in an effort to respond to a tasking from [ ]“ where the name is redacted. Hence the title of the episode: “Obama did it”.

If it was a government issued phone, it’s possible it may not have required a warrant. The courts have been pretty consistent that workers have no expectation of privacy on company-issued equipment. I have a local government issued department phone, and they make it VERY clear to us that while they don’t monitor us, we should not have an expectation of privacy. Our government phones can and have been subpoenaed, and they want us to conduct ourselves accordingly. For our own good. Definitely different circumstances, but I wonder if that same thinking applies here.

GSA provided the transition team with 600 Blackberries. Flynn’s phone was a government phone. GSA probably asked for detailed billing, which provided same Info as a pen register/ trap and trace. Probably asked for detailed billing to be delivered electronically, in real time. Someone was frequently reviewing detailed billing for selected targets. No order or paper trail exists.

That was my understanding as well. Of course they could have been alerted to the call by the Pen Register, then pulled the contents from the FISA wiretap on Kislyak. But the language used doesn’t seem right for that.

Yes, and then they did the unmasking to cover for the fact they were eavesdropping on Flynn. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me. They knew of the phone call. But when they decided to make an issue of it, they needed to back-fill to cover themselves legally. So they pull the Kislyak calls, and then do the unmasking to make it look like that was how they got the information.

Is there a thread I missed that fully explores the fact that Obama specifically wanted the Russians to react aggressively to his expelling diplomats and sanctions, and then tasked the intelligence community with finding out why his plan to sabotage an incoming administrations foreign relationship didn’t come off as planned?

According to Dan Bongino (as referenced earlier) the reason for expelling the diplomats was to prompt the call from Kislyak to Flynn. Of all the commentators that I’ve followed so far, Dan is the first to explore the possibility that the Kislyak-Flynn call was not happenstance, but instead its initiation had to be engineered. If I’ve understood the situation correctly, Flynn was on holiday at the time (but dealing with work-related issues as they arose). Assuming that Kislyak was aware of that, it’s unlikely that he would have bothered Flynn with a routine matter. The expulsions would have been deemed sufficiently exceptional to prompt an immediate communication. Whether you accept Dan’s line of argument or not, it certainly seems possible that the plan to entrap Flynn involved rather more than the recording of a phone conversation.

All the info for this particular thread is in a CNN piece from the time frame. I beleive you are correct. The sanctions and expulsions put in place the 29th of Dec 2016 were to illicit a russian response. The russian ambassador contacted Flynn first. Since obama admin put in place these events, contact would be logically be made with the incoming administration. Flynn did not hide his contact or conversation, nor did he initiate it.

I’ve never seen what the clear pretext was that initiated the original investigation of Flynn in 2016. Was it just Halper’s lie about seeing Flynn with that Russian woman? To me, all the origins of these bogus investigations need to be uprooted by Durham. They seem to all flow from the same, specious, entities like Halper.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that Halper didn’t just wake up one morning and say to himself: “Gee, I think I’ll set up a couple of guys who might become Republican campaign staffers so that we can get wiretap authorizations to monitor those campaigns.”

Halper was tasked to set up Flynn and Papadopoulos, maybe even Mifsud.

I have long believed that the Russian expulsion was really done to allow them to escape back to Russia before the collusion between Russia and the Obama administration was uncovered. It was no surprise to me that the Russians did not retaliate because it was yet another favor from the Obama administration. There is much evidence of the pay to play deals between the Obama administration and Russia. Russia had much to gain if Hillary was elected and that was the plan. Accusing the Trump administration of collusion with Russia has always been ludicrous to me. It was the Obama administration’s tact to interfere with any investigation into the crimes they committed while in office, and illustrates the belief by some that offense is the best defense.

All right. The “pen registry” gives the FBI outgoing call numbers.
But not call content!

The FBI/Clapper/Brennan can easily get Kislyak phone call content.
But not call content for Flynn’s side of the conversation.
Especially, given that Flynn was doing his job, as an official of President Trump’s Transition Team.

The FBI/Clapper/Brennan still failed to get legal permission to intercept official business classified conversation of Flynn doing his job.
Kislyak may be unprotected, Flynn sure is protected as well as President Trump’s Administration.

Which brings us back to how did Clapper/Brennan/Comey get a transcript for Flynn’s phone call to Kislyak?
Abuse of the NSA databases comes across as very likely.

So if President Trump wants to know, say, who’s been trying to undermine his administration, at a great risk to national security and our constitutional way of life, would he be justified (by the media and the Democrats) to ask his intel community get the pen registers for people like Bright, Fauci, Schiff, anybody else who has a government-issued phone, so his people can go on a fishing expedition to try to figure out with whom they’re possibly conspiring (perhaps the media?) and then ask the NSA to pull those conversations so he can read them, you know, just to make sure everything’s on the up and up? That would be perfectly legal, right? If somebody else wins the election in Nov., will the Trump administration be legally able to similarly spy on and entrap the incoming administration, peruse their phone calls and other contacts? But why wait? Why not spy on their campaigns? I’m sure the Democrats and the media would be fine with it.

Gee – do you think Barry has tried to stop Flynn from exposing Barry’s funding ISIS, the “Arab Spring”; Muslim Brotherhood take over of the ME, by removing Mumbarek from Egypt, killing Quadafi in Libya to open a “Gateway” for the African and Islamic invasion of Europe, and Assad’s removal from Syria to install a Muslim Brotherhood puppet, like Mohammed Morsi, and align with Ergodan in Turkey to open another “Invasion Gateway” into Europe?

No need for a pen register. Gov hasn’t used pen registers in 25 years. Kidlyak call was intercepted in the normal course of intell agencies intercepting adversaries diplomatic and military leaders. Recorded and monitored here in U S, and a contemporaneously typed call summary was prepared. Verbatim transcript to follow. Call will be processed and reviewed for masking before it is uploaded to network.

Comey testified that he gave Clapper a, “non standard intelligence report”. Comey grabbed the call summary, gave it to Clapper, and Clapper briefed the WH.

No need for pen register. GSA provided the transition team with 600 Blackberries. Flynn’s phone was a government phone. GSA probably requests “detailed billing” on all phones, delivered electronically. Some intell entity was reviewing the detailed billing for targets of interest. No need for an order.

LOL. I had asked about pen registers last week and read this with interest until you present your evidence “redacted had the pen on this”.

Having read the Strzok/Page texts & emails several times, that’s their lingo for who was responsible for providing the response. Strzok says in an email that he “would take the pen” on some response they were doing for D or some such.